Practical testsWe have at last decided to add other practical tests to our SSD tests, in particular so as to provide more useful data for those who want to work out if going for an SSD over their standard hard drive is worthwhile. For this we timed various operations on an other machine based on a P5QC, QX9770, GTX 280 and 2x2 GB of DDR2-1066.
- Windows Vista start-up
We measure the time needed to start up Windows Vista freshly installed with the drivers. The measurement is from running the bios (disappearance of P5QC logo) to full Windows desktop display with the cursor not showing the egg times.
- Installation of Service Pack 1
Here, the time needed to install Service Pack 1, the installation file itself being situated on the SSD.
- Start up of Windows Vista SP1+Kaspersky+Word+Excel+Outlook+Photoshop
After having installed Kapersky Antivirus 2009, the Office suite and Photoshop CS4, we put shortcuts to Word, Excel, Outlook and Photoshop in the Startup directory of the start menu. The time measured is from running the bios to the end of Photoshop CS4 launch.
- Loading of “Train” level in Crysis Warhead
After having installed and patched Crysis Warhead we launch it with the –DEVMODE option and load the train level from the consol with the “map train” command.
We weren’t able to carry out the tests on the 256 GB version of the Samsung PB22-J, as we no longer had this SSD in the lab.
On start up of a “new” Vista, the X25-M V2 is the fastest, even though you have to say the differences between the various SSDs is small.
The installation of SP1 is to the advantage of the X25-M V1 and V2, with the Vertexes also doing well.
While there were no major differences with just the start-up of Vista, it was different when we launched very heavy multi applications. The X25-M V2 is in the leading group along with the V1, the OCZ Vertexes, the Mtron MOBI 3500, and the Samsung PS410 is out in front.
As you can see, moving from an HDD to an SSD doesn’t necessarily change much in terms of loading of games. Of course, during loading there are read operations that are carried out on the storage device but also a lot of the time is linked to the creation of the environment by the processor from this data – this time can’t be cut down. Therefore if there is a gain it is slight and the X25-M is well placed.
Note that in the end in these practical tests the X25-M V2 160 GB gives only very slightly better performance than the X25-M V1 80 GB, this in spite of any more significant differences that may be present in synthetic tests.